Prize

Australian sixth seed Alex de Minaur was involved in the protests at last month’s French Open but decided he did not want to take part at Wimbledon.

“I think the sense that we had at Roland Garros was everyone was on board, even though we didn’t, as a collective, achieve the numbers that we were looking for,” he said.

“I thought that Wimbledon made a big step in the right direction, and something that should be noted. So this is for me to acknowledge their big step.”

Germany’s Alexander Zverev, who claimed his first major win in Paris earlier this month, also decided to step back.

“I still want to be part of the players’ movement, but also I realised the media can’t really do anything about it, or can’t really change it,” said Zverev, who represented the players in talks with the Grand Slams at Wimbledon last year.

“It’s not good to take it [out] on someone that doesn’t have the power of control, so I’m doing half an hour [of media]. But I still hope for some change in tennis, for sure.”

This year’s Wimbledon singles champions will each take home £3.6m, up from £3m last year, while first-round losers will earn £80,000.

Saying thank you very much for a 20% annual increase before escalating the protest to another level shows the confidence the players, and their representatives, are feeling.

The average UK employee can currently expect a 3.4% annual pay rise, and with first-round losers at Wimbledon guaranteed to take home £80,000, sympathy among the general public is likely to be in short supply.

But for the players this is not about the annual increase, but about getting a higher percentage of the revenue they help the All England Club generate.

The AELTC counters with the argument that revenue does not take into account their costs, or investment in infrastructure and other grass-court events.

But the players feel emboldened, and will not mourn over lost media opportunities, especially if they can avoid being fined.

The French Open prize money increase was in single digits, but players received 16% at the Australian Open and expect this year’s US Open to at least match the 20% rise they offered last year.

They are slowly but surely getting what they want on pay, although are asking for an extra 1.5% of revenue every year until 2030.

Those figures may not be delivered across the board, so can the issue be solved by negotiation, or will it revert to a game of bluff in which players threaten strike action – and more convincingly than they have to date?